Managing Conflict of Interest - Organisation for Economic Co ...

14 Managing Conflict of Interestautomatically and unreservedly to these goals. There will be others(the “self-interested”) who, unless there are countervailing mechanismsin place, will allow their personal interests to interfere with theirpublic duties and will use their public position for personal gain. Thismay take the form of making illicit payments for services rendered;taking advantage of “inside information” for personal financialbenefit; providing advice and making decisions in ways that will providepersonal benefit; and showing favoritism toward associates orfamily members in appointments, promotions, and the award of contracts.In a similar way, politicians may take actions that are designedto benefit their party at the expense of the wider public. Where thereis abuse of power for personal or purely party gain, we may say thatthe transgressor has allowed a conflict of interest—i.e., a private orparty interest—to interfere with or override his public duties.The personal interests of politicians and officials can be consideredin the narrow sense that they may have a specific, identifiableconflict—e.g., if they own shares in a company bidding for acontract whose award it is their job to decide. Or, their personalinterests can be considered in the broad sense that they may have apersonal interest that diverges from the aims of their government oragency—e.g., if they are inclined to seek a bribe for providing a service.The broad definition is preferable if one wishes to understandhow abuse of power and corruption originate and how to addressthe issues. The rest of this paper assumes this broad definition. 33The broad definition of conflict interest follows that of the “public choice”theorists. See Tullock, Gordon. 1965. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington,DC: Public Affairs Press; and Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy.Boston: Little Brown. The broad definition in their work covers not just thesituation where the official or politician is seeking financial gain. It also coversnonfinancial conflicts where the official or politician might be working towarda personal policy agenda that is at odds with the official policy agenda. In contrastto the pursuit of personal interests for financial gain, this may not alwaysbe at the expense of the public interest—for example, if the official is workingfor a government whose policies are patently unethical. This analysis dealsonly with conflicts of interest that result in personal or party financial gain. Buteven here the conflict may not always be at the expense of the public interest(see the last paragraph in this section). In suggesting that the vast majority ofpoliticians and officials are driven primarily by self interest, “public choice”theorists are apt to underestimate the extent to which politicians and officialsin most societies are in fact “altruistic.” Their typology nonetheless provides auseful framework for considering how bureaucracies work.ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific